Okay, since I blew the joke Blipey set up for me, here's my chance to set things right.

You may recall that 'last spring', our favorite wife and concerned mother from Topeka wrote this:

Quote

Posted: April 02 2007,14:59 (Thatís an interesting observation, Stephen. †But, Iíve sat in on many lectures, classes, and debates regarding these topics, and Iíve also read many peer-reviewed papers, and I can tell you that I have never seen words in them like the following:

Nor have I ever seen the sarcasm, ridicule and habitual poking fun of others who hold difference scientific perspectives or religious ideals at any of the aforementioned places where scientific issues are usually addressed. †

In actuality, there is little science discussed here at all. †The object of most of these threads seems to be merely to ridicule others...

[my boldfacing]

Now, I've asked FTK more times than I can remember now just what ferkakte peer-reviewed papers she's read and I've been ignored every time. Not even an "oh shut up Arden", or an "I don't have to tell you anything!" or even an "I already told you!" Deafening silence.

So, I figured if this question gets its own thread, with no other distracting questions, it SHOULD be easier to get an answer.

So, FTK? Please to give us list now?

--------------"Rich is just mad because he thought all titties had fur on them until last week when a shorn transvestite ruined his childhood dreams by jumping out of a spider man cake and man boobing him in the face lips." - Erasmus

No, I'm not going to "make a list". †I gave you a whole freaking thread from kcfs to pan through in which many people posted various peer-reviewed papers to support their position. I read most of what was posted.

Sheesh...why is it sooo hard to believe that I've read peer-reviewed papers, and who really cares? †

I remember saying somewhere else here in this forum that I certainly didn't understand every single thing I've read by any means, but I got the general idea of what the poster was trying to get across to support his point. †

You wade through all the crap at kcfs, I'm certainly not going to spend my time doing that.

--------------"Evolution is a creationism and just as illogical [as] the other pantheistic creation myths" -forastero

Sheesh...why is it sooo hard to believe that I've read peer-reviewed papers, and who really cares?

Personally, I don't care. It's hard to believe you've read any peer-reviewed papers 'cause you're so freakin ignorant of the subjects on which you pontificate. Maybe you read 'em, but if you did you learned nothing.

Sheesh...why is it sooo hard to believe that I've read peer-reviewed papers, and who really cares?

I remember saying somewhere else here in this forum that I certainly didn't understand every single thing I've read by any means, but I got the general idea of what the poster was trying to get across to support his point.

heh.

My reason for wanting you to "list them" is as follows.

Lets assume for a moment you are arguing a point such as "the earth is 10,000 years old". Somebody shows you a peer-reviewed paper that lays out the case for an old earth.

Your reaction would be to dispute that the paper is correct, however your only mechanism to do that (as a self-confessed ignoramus) would simply be to declare that it's not correct because it's incompatible with your special book.

That, FTK, is comedy gold.

So, I guess at some point somebody will have to dig in that forum and find a paper you dispute. Then we can have a nice old fireside chat about it here, and your reasons for disbelieving it will be marshmallows to roast on the fire. Yum Yum.

--------------I also mentioned that He'd have to give me a thorough explanation as to *why* I must "eat human babies".FTK

if there are even critical flaws in Gaugerís work, the evo mat narrative cannot standGordon Mullings

†It's hard to believe you've read any peer-reviewed papers 'cause you're so freakin ignorant of the subjects on which you pontificate. †Maybe you read 'em, but if you did you learned nothing.

Perhaps there were too many big words, and not enough "thou shalt nots".

Or perhaps, like the apocryphal Muslims who burned the Library of Alexandria, FTK figures that either a scientific paper opposes the Bible, in which case it is evil, or it supports the Bible, in which case it is superfluous.

Sheesh...why is it sooo hard to believe that I've read peer-reviewed papers

Um, maybe because you're utterly totally absolutely one-thousand-percent pig-ignorant about every single scientific topic that you presume to yammer about . . . . ?

After all, anyone who can't make up their mind whether the earth is billions of years old, or just thousands of years old, never got past seventh-grade earth science, much less understood any peer-reviewed geological papers.

No, I'm not going to "make a list". †I gave you a whole freaking thread from kcfs to pan through in which many people posted various peer-reviewed papers to support their position. †I read most of what was posted.

Sheesh...why is it sooo hard to believe that I've read peer-reviewed papers, and who really cares? †

I remember saying somewhere else here in this forum that I certainly didn't understand every single thing I've read by any means, but I got the general idea of what the poster was trying to get across to support his point. †

You wade through all the crap at kcfs, I'm certainly not going to spend my time doing that.

I do not believe that you have read (with comprehension) peer-reviewed scientific papers.

The language is too obscure for a lay-person to have a clue what they are reading.

Your writing style gives away the position that you are not trained in any biology related science (just like me).

The reason people "care" is that you made a claim to have read "peer reviewed papers" in a way that implied that you could understand them and be capable of criticising them.

Why start at "peer reviewed papers"? Why not go and get a basic science education? One you clearly lack.

That is not an insult. AFAIK (and PLEASE correct me if I'm wrong) you didn't do a science degree (which is the bare minimum, not the be all and end all) and are not a working scientist.

Confession of geekdom time: As a 13 year old kid, I subscribed to Nature. I begged my parents to pay for a subscription for my birthday and they were kind enough to do so. I read as much of it as I could, but let's be blunt, I didn't understand a great deal. I still have those old Natures from the 80's and early 90's and NOW go back and read and understand them. Sure I picked up a few interesting things and I learned a lot, but the vast majority of it was way over my head.

I'm not comparing you to my 13 year old self in any other sense than this: without the basic knowledge, why should you expect to pick up a journal and NOT find many things way above your head? This doesn't mean you won't get some stuff, any intelligent, interested adult should be able to.

A formal education is just ONE path to knowledge and ability in science, this is true. There are many gifted amateurs who have not got letters after their name (and many blithering idiots WITH letters after there name) and who understand, make contributions and do good science. These individuals are a tiny minority though, and those that do make the public eye as it were are justifiably famous for their efforts.

The VAST majority of people who are knowledgeable about science have actually done some in a formal sense. That's not an indoctrination programme (science doesn't proceed by indoctrination, in fact indoctrination is the antithesis of science) it's a humble appreciation of the simple fact that there is a lot of very technical stuff to learn and tricky mechanisms and methods to master.

Peer reviewed papers. In my office at home I have two identical bookshelves which measure 1.5m wide by 2m tall. They are full of science books. Not popular science books (different shelves. I have a lot of books!), not just textbooks from my undergrad days (although just over half of one is textbooks), but technical books summarising fields of research. I've read the lot and made notes, all at least twice, most more. I have two 4 drawer filing cabinets full to over flowing with printed out papers, articles, reviews, communications etc all from the primary literature, I bought a third cabinet this weekend to put the over flow in. All papers are catalogued and in a database on my home PC. I have over 20 GB of PDF files (something I have recently started doing instead of print out, although I prefer to read things on paper) each file in an individual article (some contain fancy graphics! So it sounds larger than it is. It's not all pure text!) stored on this PC and it is growing at an alarming rate. All read, all catalogued. I personally subscribe to four journals, it costs me about £2k a year and these along with my old teen Nature subscription occupies another large book case. In a month I'll need to buy another. My wife does go spastic at the amount of books etc I have. This is just the stuff I have AT HOME. You don't even want to know what I have at work (smaller amounts of books, at least equal amounts of journals). I set aside as a combination of my personal time and some work time between 10 and 12 hours per week in which I read the primary chemistry literature. Some journals are published once a week, some once a fortnight, some once a month etc. I read roughly 25 journals regularly and at least 10 of those are weekly. Any articles I like I keep and catalogue for reference.

I don't say this to show off or intimidate you. I say this merely to give you an idea of what a decade of being a professional scientist involves in terms of papers read. "I've read peer reviewed journals" to me is like saying "I breath". It's not really that exciting. Of course anyone interested in science reads journals, the question is do you understand what you're reading. Without an understanding of the basics the majority of any journal, or even any article is very likely to whistle straight past you. Not every time, but a lot of the time.

So whilst it's great fun to bloviate on blogs and message boards it's not really a substitute for actual knowledge or actual talent or actual research or actual work....which reminds me, my new Angewante Chemie It Ed came on Friday and I haven't read it yet!.

Posted: April 02 2007,14:59 (Thatís an interesting observation, Stephen. But, Iíve sat in on many lectures, classes, and debates regarding these topics, and Iíve also read many peer-reviewed papers, and I can tell you that I have never seen words in them like the following:

I wonder if this doesn't tell us something interesting about the way creationists "read" debates like this one.

FtK seems to have no concern at all for the content of the papers she has supposedly read - only for the character of that writing vs the character of the discussion here. IE, what her emotive response to it is.

Do you think maybe that's *really* the only difference she can tell between this kind of debate and a formal scientific paper? That kind of serious category error would certainly explain why so many creationists fall for the dreck that they do.

It would make sense -- that which feels good to read (makes the creationist feel smart, right, confirmed, etc) would be acceptable, while that which feels bad (makes the creationist feel ill-educated, insulted, uncomfortable, etc) would be rejected. And writings with little to no emotive power - such as most scientific papers -- would be glossed over, as FtK is doing here. Lacking content the creationist reader knows how to process, they would simply be ignored.

--------------Conversation should be pleasant without scurrility, witty without affectation, free without indecency, learned without conceitedness, novel without falsehood. - Shakespeare (reputedly)

Posted: April 02 2007,14:59 (Thatís an interesting observation, Stephen. †But, Iíve sat in on many lectures, classes, and debates regarding these topics, and Iíve also read many peer-reviewed papers, and I can tell you that I have never seen words in them like the following:

I wonder if this doesn't tell us something interesting about the way creationists "read" debates like this one.

FtK seems to have no concern at all for the content of the papers she has supposedly read - †only for the character of that writing vs the character of the discussion here. †IE, what her emotive response to it is.

Do you think maybe that's *really* the only difference she can tell between this kind of debate and a formal scientific paper? † †That kind of serious category error would certainly explain why so many creationists fall for the dreck that they do. †

It would make sense -- that which feels good to read (makes the creationist feel smart, right, confirmed, etc) †would be acceptable, while that which feels bad (makes the creationist feel ill-educated, insulted, uncomfortable, etc) would be rejected. † And writings with little to no emotive power - such as most scientific papers -- would be glossed over, †as FtK is doing here. †Lacking content the creationist reader knows how to process, †they would simply be ignored.

Right now I am trying to read Roger Penrose"The Road to Reality". Damned if I can fathom it. Meant to be Pop-Science but I am scuppered.

Why start at "peer reviewed papers"? Why not go and get a basic science education? One you clearly lack.

Why indeed. †What in the hell do you think I'm doing with the textbook Dave gave me? †Are you all tone deaf (or I guess blind, in this case). †

Who the hell cares about a one liner where I stated that I had read some peer reviewed papers? †What was I supposed to do when they were posted to support the topic being discuss? †Ignore the link and move on? †Cripes, you people are unbelieveable. †I can't honestly say that I didn't understand a word of what I read. †That would be lying.

Of course I'd be better off starting with the basics, but shoot, I've been reading the basics in these forums for almost 3 years now. †I'm find that I already understand much of the stuff I'm reading in Dave's textbook because I've been involved in this debate for so long. †

I also am beginning to understand why college students accept this stuff as fact. †It's all written without any consideration that a lot of it is speculation. †And, it only covers topics ever so slightly. †I find myself asking why, why, why and how do they come to that conclusion? †I wouldn't have asked those questions as a college student because I was more interested in getting through the hour of class, getting a decent grade, and getting back to the bar & my social life ASAP.

--------------"Evolution is a creationism and just as illogical [as] the other pantheistic creation myths" -forastero

No, I'm not going to "make a list". †I gave you a whole freaking thread from kcfs to pan through in which many people posted various peer-reviewed papers to support their position. †I read most of what was posted.

You can't name even one?

†

Quote

Sheesh...why is it sooo hard to believe that I've read peer-reviewed papers

We don't really need to give an explicit answer to this question, do we?

† †

Quote

I remember saying somewhere else here in this forum that I certainly didn't understand every single thing I've read by any means, but I got the general idea of what the poster was trying to get across to support his point. †

So, basically, your answer this time is a combination of "I don't have to tell you", with a dash of "I've already explained that elsewhere".

Okay, I think I can see three possible explanations here, all of them pretty grim:

a) you have 'read' articles, but you didn't understand most of them, mentally rejected them, and they made so little of an impression on you, you really can't name any of them.

b) you know perfectly well what articles you read, but you don't want to explain them or explain why you disagree with them.

c) you simply haven't read any peer-reviewed articles.

You know, Christians like yourself make a much better impression on the public when they're actually, you know, honest.

--------------"Rich is just mad because he thought all titties had fur on them until last week when a shorn transvestite ruined his childhood dreams by jumping out of a spider man cake and man boobing him in the face lips." - Erasmus

Arden, this will make you happy...and set you up to rip me even further.

I'd have to pick A. I read them at the time because they were posted to coorespond with something being discussed. I certainly don't remember the titles or authors of any of them.

Let's make this even easier for you. I am a simple layperson who does not work in any field of science. I am simply TRYING to understand why evolution is taught so dogmatically, and why ID cannot find a home in which it can be discussed without a fight. The science room is obviously out, and the churches aren't going to touch the subject with a ten foot pool except to say that, yes, a designer exists.

sigh...

--------------"Evolution is a creationism and just as illogical [as] the other pantheistic creation myths" -forastero

I also am beginning to understand why college students accept this stuff as fact. It's all written without any consideration that a lot of it is speculation. And, it only covers topics ever so slightly. I find myself asking why, why, why and how do they come to that conclusion? I wouldn't have asked those questions as a college student because I was more interested in getting through the hour of class, getting a decent grade, and getting back to the bar & my social life ASAP.

Then perhaps you should actually take a class. You may recall that someone once told you (I hope) that class was for attending and learning things. Class is for asking questions. Class is for participation, for comprehension. Things that directly bear on education and, yes, what is best for the kids.

You could, of course, ask your questions to any of the professional scientists that post on this board (and many others). I don't hold out much hope that you will. I think it more likely that you will read (or skim) your textbook, ask yourself "why" like you did when you were a girl and just like then, bottle up your questions because you already know the answer or are still really more interested in going to the bar.

This place will still be here after it closes, I want you to prove me wrong.

Blipey, I really try my best to ignore you because it's obviously impossible to reason with, but then there was this:

Quote

You could, of course, ask your questions to any of the professional scientists that post on this board (and many others). †I don't hold out much hope that you will. †I think it more likely that you will read (or skim) your textbook, ask yourself "why" like you did when you were a girl and just like then, bottle up your questions because you already know the answer or are still really more interested in going to the bar.

WHAT IN THE F**K DO YOU THINK I'M DOING ON THE OTHER THREAD IN MY CONVERSATIONS WITH KSUDAVE? †He's a friggin biology professor for God's sake, and I HAVE BEEN ASKING HIM SEVERAL QUESTIONS. †Some other buy named "Woodbine" is over there with responses minus the ridicule as well. †If I could stop myself from getting sidetracked by the crap that goes on here, I could focus on asking them more questions.

What is wrong with you, Blipey? †Seriously...did mama drop you on your head as a baby? †You are one angry, pentup little fellow. †Calm yourself, and have some fun for a while. †Goodness sakes.

[I know I sound mean, and that is not good. †I don't like myself when I act that way. †So, I love you Blipey, I just wish you would take a chill pill. †Got any? †Now would be a good time to indulge.]

--------------"Evolution is a creationism and just as illogical [as] the other pantheistic creation myths" -forastero

--------------"Rich is just mad because he thought all titties had fur on them until last week when a shorn transvestite ruined his childhood dreams by jumping out of a spider man cake and man boobing him in the face lips." - Erasmus

I also am beginning to understand why college students accept this stuff as fact. It's all written without any consideration that a lot of it is speculation. And, it only covers topics ever so slightly. I find myself asking why, why, why and how do they come to that conclusion? I wouldn't have asked those questions as a college student because I was more interested in getting through the hour of class, getting a decent grade, and getting back to the bar & my social life ASAP.

Honestly, if you can find ANYTHING in a college-level intro textbook that is "speculation", and not clearly labeled as speculation, then you get a gold star. Saying it is true doesn't make it true. And if you want to read speculation, I have a copy of "Pandas", as well as a copy of the Bob Jones University textbooks "Biology for Christian Schools". Please give us an example of any unwarranted speculation in Campbell, Reese and Simon, and I'll easily match you one-for-one from Pandas or the other books. Thanks.

Furthermore, given that there are literally hundreds of scientific papers backing up every single sentence in an intro-level college biology texttbook, how, exactly, do you expect the authors to give all the evidence for the things that you label "speculation"? In what other college-level intro textbooks do the authors provide all of the evidence for their sentences?

Finally, intro-level college biology textbooks must cover a lot of material, and there is really no way to cover any topic in any detail. That's why it's an introductory book, BTW. If you want the detail, you take other classes with other more specialized textbooks. Then you take other classes which use (and critique) the primary literature on which this is all based. Then you will understand the sheer silliness of your criticisms of this introductory level textbook. It has nothing to do with the bar and social life expectations of college freshmen; it has a lot to do with the reality of science, and how it is done, and how it is taught.

--------------Flesh of the sky, child of the sky, the mindHas been obligated from the beginningTo create an ordered universeAs the only possible proof of its own inheritance. † † † † † † † † † † † † - Pattiann Rogers

Your response came up as I worked on mine. †Thank you for making the concession you didn't understand what you read. †It's a step.

Where we are now is dealing with a question Steve posed on your old thread:

Quote

The general question is, 'how do you get someone who doesn't know the first thing about science, to understand that a particular pseudoscience they like isn't science?'. FtK proves on a daily basis that we haven't found the answer to that question.

Since you don't understand how science works, you are unfortunately incapable of making a competent comparison between ID and science. †Do you realize this? †Again, I appreciate the fact that you concede gaps in your knowledge. †Do you concede this point as well?

Blind? Or perhaps didn't know because I haven't read that post. I DO miss things and I certainly don't read every post. Ahhh the paranoid tendency to see hostility and persecution where none exists (even when a disclaimer is used!), it smells so....pathetic. But this:

Quote

I also am beginning to understand why college students accept this stuff as fact. It's all written without any consideration that a lot of it is speculation. And, it only covers topics ever so slightly. I find myself asking why, why, why and how do they come to that conclusion? I wouldn't have asked those questions as a college student because I was more interested in getting through the hour of class, getting a decent grade, and getting back to the bar & my social life ASAP.

And this

Quote

I am simply TRYING to understand why evolution is taught so dogmatically, and why ID cannot find a home in which it can be discussed without a fight.

Are not going unremarked upon.

1) No evolutionary biology is not speculation. You've been sold a lie if that's what you believe. It is also not taught dogmatically, there is no dogma to teach.

What IS taught is the best set of explanations we have based on the best facts we have. Sorry if your beliefs conflict with reality to such and extent that you have to deny the facts.

IDC is NOT science, never has been, never will be. The data simply does not support it at all. IDC is demonstrably old wine in new bottles. Antique ideas about teleology in nature that weren't very good when they were invented and are contradicted by every single thing we know about the universe. The reason IDC is not taught as some alternative to evolutionary biology is because it is not an alternative to evolutionary biology, it is wishful thinking coloured with jargon words to make it sound sciencey to the rubes who buy Dembski et al's books. It's a con. Nothing more, nothing less. Get over it.

You pride yourself on an open mind (something for which no evidence can yet be found) then do what any good scholar would do...go and find out. Ask a prof at a local uni, phone them up, email them, ask for a reading list. You'll find hundreds of people willing to help. Pay an impoverished post grad a tutorial fee ($20 or whatever it is, it will be small) for an hour's tutorial on things you don't understand (they'll be so flattered you could probably get it for free!). Instead of wringing your hands and crying "why why why how" and "it's all speculation" (when it so isn't) go an find out. Take the time you waste on line and actually go and use it productively.

A college textbook will have references in it, GET THEM. I cannot stress this enough. When you get those references look at the references section of them and get THOSE references. Keep going until you can't go any further. It takes time, it costs money, it takes a lot of effort. We call it "researching the primary literature" and it's a good idea to do this BEFORE you even get to do basic research.

I say all this but then:

2) You think all college students are like you? Mindlessly parroting facts to get back to the bar and to obtain a passing grade? You think this is how science works? Oh purleeez! It's the "Don't think, accept" attitude that typifies poor (read: non-existent) scholarship. I positively HATED this trite drivel when at school and university and yes I regularly blasted people who espoused it. This is the antithesis of the scientific endeavour, the opposite of research and the very epitome of shoddy anti-intellectual, incurious, shallow, "cargo-cult" style pseudo thought. It's the most contemptible thing I have seen you express, and sister, that says a lot given the crap you spout.

You will never, can never understand even the basics of science with an attitude to scholarship like this. Oh sure, you can parrot things back to people but that does not constitute either learning, thought, understanding or scholarship. The opposite is true: Don't accept, THINK.

Some time back, on the KCFS forum, I asked FtK a relatively simple question. It had to do with radiometric dating, which she doesn't trust, or rejects outright. I wanted to know why she poo-pooed radiometric dating, but accepted uncritically all of the rest of nuclear physics. I mean, she accepts that hydrogen bombs explode as predicted, and x-ray machines work as predicted, and any number of other commonplace manifestations of predictions in nuclear physics, but radiometric dating is no good.

She used her famous "I'm too busy but I'll get back to you" dodge, and said that her husband thought it was a case of comparing apples with oranges, but never gave an answer. How about it, FtK? You've had a year or so to think about it now. Why do you reject only the areas of science that conflict with your religious opinions, but accept the same science when there's no conflict (in your mind, at least)?

Edit: typo

--------------Evolution is not about laws but about randomness on happanchance.--Robert Byers, at PT